Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been very clear that sovereignty was not on the table. Gibraltar—its Government and its Parliament—has freely agreed to this agreement, and a range of arrangements are in place, as well as dispute mechanisms, to ensure that fluid movement can take place across the border and high standards will continue to be enjoyed. Those are set out very clearly in the treaty, and I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the detail of those arrangements and how they will operate in practice, but I emphasise that this agreement has Gibraltar, its Government and its people at its heart. They have backed it, and they have agreed to remove that border and the risk of a hard border, which would have been disastrous for Gibraltarians.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

As the Minister knows from our Westminster Hall debate last week, I was part of an APPG delegation to Gibraltar a couple of months ago, where we had a wide-ranging set of meetings. I congratulate all those involved in achieving the treaty. One reservation that was put to me by the Leader of the Opposition there—who did, of course, eventually support the treaty—was about possible future changes. He wanted an absolute guarantee that the people of Gibraltar would have the final say on any future constitutional changes. Could the Minister confirm that is the case?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his consistent advocacy and support on behalf of Gibraltarians —it is very important to see that support on both sides of the House today. The concordat that I have set out with the Chief Minister, and indeed the letter I have written, set out how we will work incredibly closely with the Government of Gibraltar going forward to address any unforeseen circumstances. The treaty has clear provisions in relation to that, as well. Of course, we do not foresee circumstances in which those provisions would ever be needed, but it is important that they are always there, and I am confident that they will stand the test of time.

NATO Summit

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the hon. Member’s question. I can assure him that the commitment to increasing investment in defence—both in each country’s sovereign defence and in our shared defence—was evident right around the NATO council table from every country, and I am sure that that will continue. NATO’s strength has been the commitments from all allies working together, and that commitment will make us strong into the future, too.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

May I take the Foreign Secretary back to the reply she gave to the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? By including some other admittedly vital services, she managed to come to a figure of 4% spending on defence. The reality, as we know, is that Europe is still heavily reliant on the US for its defence. Bearing in mind the President’s recent comments, will she acknowledge that further increases will have to take place over the coming years? It is an internal debate for Government whether that comes from the welfare budget, as the Father of the House suggested, or elsewhere.

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree that we need to go further. The defence investment plan has set out a plan that takes us from 2.3% up to 2.7%. We have made commitments to go to 3% and then to 3.5% on core defence spending, so we of course need to go further. We need to ensure that as we increase investment, we also increase our capabilities and expand our defence industry. We must do so collectively, and with the most modern technology and capabilities. We must also show leadership, because it is not just about investment. As we work with our partners, those crucial UK capabilities and leadership are what keep our people safe.

Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John, for what I hope will be an interesting and constructive debate about the future of Gibraltar. I am delighted to be joined by the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar—the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin)—on which I serve as the vice-chairman.

As the result of a discussion between me and the Gibraltar Government representative, who is in the Gallery, we thought it would be useful to have a fact-finding trip to Gibraltar, so that when the treaty on the future of the Rock was up for discussion, we could have one from an informed position. Two or three people who were hoping to go on the trip were unable to, but I was delighted that Baroness Butler-Sloss, the Cross-Bench peer, accompanied me, and we were also joined for one or two of the meetings by Lord James Wharton, from the upper House.

Following discussions with the Gibraltar office here in London, we put together a programme that was pretty comprehensive and gave us a good overview of the views of the local population, the business community and, of course, the politicians in Gibraltar. We had a meeting with His Excellency the Governor, which was just a courtesy call, but it is always a pleasure to meet up with him and other senior diplomats to hear how they approach the issues. I should point out that we went at our own expense, so we were independent of the Government of Gibraltar.

After we had seen the Governor, we were delighted to go to the airport and be joined by the Chief Minister, who delighted in giving us a tour of the airport. He has clearly devoted a great deal of time and effort to the arrangements that are necessary to ensure that all sides are content and, importantly, that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is maintained. We all know the long history of Spanish claims on the Rock, but that is definitely not in any way part of the treaty; sovereignty is absolute.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

indicated assent.

[Martin Vickers]

I can see the Minister nodding; no doubt he will confirm that later.

On our trip to the airport, the concerns about Spanish officials operating on the Rock were, to some extent, assuaged. I was delighted that we were able to receive reassurance from not just the Chief Minister but his senior officials who accompanied us on the tour of the airport. I know there have been certain concerns about Spanish officials, police and the like operating within British territory, but the arrangements that have been made mean that, to a great extent, our fears can be assuaged.

Next we visited the commander at the British base. He assured us that there is co-operation with the Spanish authorities, which is only beneficial to both sides. There is no interference in the operations of the base, and the military is content with the arrangements. The American navy had been in the port only a day or two before our visit. It was encouraging, particularly in view of the current world situation and some of the noises coming from the American Administration, that work and co-operation are continuing at a purely operational level.

There was one visit on which we heard some discontent. We walked along Main Street and called in to see a number of retailers, purely at random, and they raised some concerns. As we know, the retail sector is struggling in many countries, and Gibraltar is no exception. Interestingly enough, one of the shops we went into dealt in ceramics, and the owner imported most of his products from the UK. He pointed out that because of various impositions on the ceramics sector, the costs were rising in the UK so much that it was becoming unprofitable to operate. With the proposed taxation arrangements in Gibraltar affecting retailers, he was going to cease operations in the not-too-distant future after being in business for about 25 years. It was very sad to hear that. But on the whole, although many of the retailers were not particularly happy, they recognised the overall benefits to Gibraltar of the operations.

I have mentioned the concerns about security and so on. One of our meetings was with the chief commissioner of the police, who recognised that there are a number of issues that need what he described as “further consideration”. Having said that, when we left the meeting we felt that, on the whole, his concerns could be worked through. I am sure the Minister is well aware of them, but I would be more than happy to discuss them with him if that would be beneficial.

We then had a lunchtime meeting with the Chief Minister, the Attorney General and the Health, Care and Business Minister. It is important to stress that we had full co-operation from the Chief Minister and his Ministers during our visit, bearing in mind that we had no official standing and were merely there as representatives of the all-party group. I want to put on the record our sincere thanks to the Gibraltar representative for assisting us in making the arrangements for the visit.

In the course of the lunch with the Chief Minister, once we had dealt with the routine matters we were there to discuss, we had a very useful political discussion. It is always interesting to hear an outside politician’s views of what is happening over here in the UK. I am not entirely sure what they would make of it today, but a couple of months ago we had a fascinating discussion, mainly about whether there were concerns about the treaty across the political spectrum here in the UK. We were able to give reassurance, based on the meetings we had and knowing the views of colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group, that there would be all-party support from Westminster.

According to the report we put together, we discussed the evolving UK-EU relationship, and on the whole the direction of travel was greatly supported. We also discussed a number of the issues that were causing concern, including—if I can remember the ins and outs of it—people taking advantage of the arrangements that were being put in place. It is probably not something we need to cover today, but it is worth recording that there were some concerns about people trying to take advantage of the health services provided in Gibraltar. We also had a constructive meeting with the vice-chancellor of the university, whom we had met on previous occasions. It was interesting to receive an update on how things were progressing there.

We had an interesting meeting with Keith Azopardi, the leader of the opposition in Gibraltar, because we wanted to ensure that we received views on the treaty from across the political spectrum. He pointed out that the opposition had imposed a number of red lines in their discussions, but as Members will know, the draft treaty was eventually approved unanimously by the Gibraltarian Parliament. The leader of the opposition quite understandably pointed out his party’s concerns. As opposition parties do, it obviously wanted to carve out a position whereby if something went wrong, he would be able to say, “I told you so.” I can see Government Members smiling at that, because they have been in opposition—my party is in opposition now, and the shadow minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), may point out one or two of our concerns in that respect.

Mr Azopardi expressed genuine concerns but—he will probably not thank me for saying this—in all honesty I think he was struggling to find reasons why he would have been tempted to vote against the treaty. It is important to recognise that political parties across Gibraltar have supported the treaty and feel on balance that it would be beneficial for it to be ratified.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. He mentioned cross-party support; does he agree that, as far as we are able to ascertain, the people of Gibraltar are glad that there is cross-party support for their position in this House, and that we must try to maintain that to ensure the safety and security of the people on the Rock of Gibraltar?

[Martin Vickers]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Following our meeting with the leader of the opposition, we met with Eva Wallace, who is a store manager at Morrisons. Those who know Gibraltar well will know that Morrisons is not just a key part of the retail scene there but a big business operation. Ms Wallace outlined what she described as the significant complexities that arose following Brexit, and the different but equally substantial complexities—such as labelling requirements—that will follow the treaty’s implementation. She pointed out that there would certainly be a reduction in the range of stock the store could offer. Having said that, it currently carries 20,000 different products, so I suspect most customers will not notice if that goes down to 17,000 or 18,000. Morrisons does business with Morocco, from where it gets tomatoes, and there had been problems with labelling. The store has a loyal customer base in Gibraltar, but felt that the ease of crossing the border would increase the footfall coming from Spain, for which bus trips were being arranged. The business is well established there and knows how to continue and hopefully increase footfall.

The university vice-chancellor referred to the new immigration rules, and we noted in our report that the university would closely assess their impact on its attractiveness to prospective students from around the world. Research funding had been difficult to secure since Brexit, and the vice-Chancellor hoped that that might ease with the conclusion of the treaty.

I will draw my comments to a close and allow other Members to take part. On balance, we came away with the overwhelming view that the treaty negotiations had been a success and that the final version of the treaty should be approved. It has cross-party support in Gibraltar and it would be regrettable if that were not reflected here at Westminster. I am interested to hear contributions from other Members. Having in a sense imposed problems on Gibraltar as a result of our leaving the EU, it is important that we have reached a satisfactory conclusion. We should congratulate our negotiating team, and the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister and their colleagues in Gibraltar. I know from several visits over recent years that they have worked tirelessly to achieve the treaty, which is, on balance, welcome. I hope that, as it passes through the various stages in Westminster, we are able to finalise it in the very near future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers]

At the outset I expressed the hope that this would be an interesting and informative debate, and I think all Members would agree that that has been the case. The essence of the debate, as we have just heard from the Minister, has been about sovereignty, which was one of the most important issues that we debated on our recent visit. One thing that the Chief Minister was keen to point out at the airport was the positioning of the flags. As people progress through the various stages at the airport, flags remind people that they are on Gibraltarian/British territory, with the Union flag and the Gibraltar flag prominently displayed.

Most importantly, though, the Chief Minister said the treaty is about the people of Gibraltar and the benefits that they will accrue from it. Clearly, they want the certainty that it provides, but there are also day-to-day benefits. One that I noted when we met the Health Minister was that the treaty will allow ambulances to move more freely between Spain and the Rock. That is clearly a practical advantage to the citizens of Gibraltar, whose loyalty to the British Crown is certainly appreciated by those of us who have been to Gibraltar for national day. That is something that we want to maintain.

I thank all those who have taken part in the debate, and in particular the Minister for his comprehensive response, and I thank everyone—those on the British side, as well as the Chief Minister and his colleagues in Gibraltar—who took part in the treaty negotiations. We have had an interesting and informative debate this morning and I look forward to further discussions. As the Minister outlined, the process will continue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend will know how seriously we take this situation. We continue to monitor it closely—including, as has been raised, the impact on British nationals—and to ensure that we continue to engage with the Government of Pakistan where appropriate. We want to see this situation come to an end.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Last month, along with other members of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, I visited the Rock in order to assess responses to the proposed treaty at first hand. Will the Minister give us an update? When does he anticipate that the treaty will be finalised?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his consistent advocacy on Gibraltar. We are committed to finalising this treaty imminently. The draft treaty text is undergoing its final legal checks, and as he will know, a draft was previously deposited in the House with a summary on 26 February. We look forward to signature imminently, and the provisional application is expected on 15 July.

Freedom of Religion or Belief in China

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on her speech. Although I will talk primarily about the persecution of Christians in China, and particularly the intolerable position of the Catholic Church, I fully support what she and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) said about the persecution of Muslims. What is happening to the Uyghurs is absolutely intolerable.

In China, the institutionally entrenched ideological intolerance of Christianity and other religions stems back to 1949, and has continuously been perpetrated by the communist regime, often with extreme violence. An estimated 96.7 million Christians live in China; they are one of the largest Christian populations in the world. Religious groups are made to register with state-operated “patriotic associations”, and unregistered religious activity is illegal. Many Christians worship in unregistered house churches, which leaves them vulnerable to raids, fines and detention.

China currently ranks 17th on the 2026 world watch list, with a persecution score of 79 out of 100. In many regions of China, children under the age of 18 are widely prohibited from participating in religious activities. The restrictions reported include the suspension of Sunday school programmes, schools discouraging religious belief among students, and students being pressured to report religious activity within their families, which is probably the worst of all—something out of George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four”.

In September 2025, China introduced new regulations on the online behaviour of religious clergy. The rules require religious leaders to support the leadership of the CCP, promote socialist values and preach only on Government-approved online platforms.

Let me say a bit about the position of the Catholic Church. Catholics were hopeful that the 2018 agreement between the Vatican and the People’s Republic of China would heal wounds caused by the Communist party’s attempt to suppress Catholicism. The promise of reconciliation has, alas, not been realised. In some dioceses, the divisions between the actual Catholic Church in China and the state-backed so-called patriotic Church has actually deepened. Bishops who stood aside in the interests of unity have been marginalised and placed under surveillance for refusing to take part in state structures. State-controlled religious apparatus remains coercive. The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association exercises extensive control over Catholic life in the People’s Republic.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Between 2017 and 2020, my daughter worked as a teacher in Shanghai. We visited her at Easter 2018, and I recall walking past the Catholic cathedral while the service was taking place on Easter morning, and it was overflowing. Later in the day, I attended a service at the church that my daughter went to, and there were 200 or 300 people there. There did not appear to be any repression of the services. Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that it has got much worse over the last three or four years?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The devil is in the detail. When it comes to China, everything is very complicated; there are no simple arguments or solutions. This is not an outright communist regime like North Korea. In theory, if someone is a Catholic, they are allowed to practise their faith, which is why my hon. Friend saw the church overflowing, but they have to practise in a way that is approved by the state.

Middle East

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The answer is, very simply, yes. I am of Christian faith, like my hon. Friend’s Baptist constituents, but people of all faiths and no faith are horrified by what they are seeing and want the United Kingdom to continue to do all it can to bring this horrifying war and suffering to an end. That is what we do every day.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I welcome the anticipated recognition of Palestine, expected later this month. Of itself it will make no difference on the ground, but I think it is an important piece of symbolism. We heard in an earlier question about the risks that journalists are facing, and we are aware that Israel blocks many journalists, including the BBC, from entering Gaza. What representations has the Foreign Secretary made to the Israelis about this?

[Mr Lammy]

I assure the hon. Member that I have made those representations to the Israeli Government, and so has the Minister for the Middle East, who sits next to me. I also know that this is a topic of conversation among other Foreign Ministers across the developed world. We think that international journalists play an important part in the landscape and scrutiny of any democratic country. Israel often reminds us that it is a democratic country, and it is important to let those journalists in.

Gibraltar

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

No, absolutely not. We have secured that arrangement. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that Spain is a NATO ally, and it understood the importance of that requirement. As it has been raised, let me just say that, yes, there is a dispute resolution mechanism and a termination clause, as the House would appropriately expect.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

This welcome agreement has been a long time coming. Those of us who have had the privilege of visiting Gibraltar on official delegations are aware of how loyal Gibraltarians are to Britain and the British Crown. On the talk of sovereignty, I think we have established that, other than the St Pancras-style arrangement, the Spanish police will have no authority. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that no other Spanish authority—customs officials, for example—will have any authority on the Rock?

[Mr Lammy]

Yesterday I met Joe Bossano, who, at 85, is a long-standing Member of the Gibraltar Parliament. He shared his reflections on Gibraltar and its attachment to the UK, on the war and being evacuated to the UK, and on where there have been disagreements with the UK, when the UK has not understood that Gibraltar is part of the family. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks: yes is the answer.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I have come to this House on a number of occasions to talk about a number of things the British Government have done in relation to this situation. I say that sanctions are no remedy; they are no remedy in this situation. They are so often not a remedy in the many circumstances in which we apply them. I feel much greater satisfaction when we announce positive steps that we have taken—aid that has gone in, partnerships with the region. It is with regret, always, that we announce sanctions. I will not speculate on what further we may introduce in this case or any other, as my hon. Friend will understand. I recognise the limitations of sanctions, but under these circumstances, the Government judged that we had no choice but to express the strength of our feeling through sanctions. On the questions of international humanitarian law, I repeat once again this Government’s commitment to abiding by all our IHL obligations.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I have spoken on a number of occasions in recent weeks about recognition of Palestine, and I put on record again that I think we should proceed with it. Certainly, a vote in this House, as was suggested a moment ago, would strengthen the Government’s position and, I would have thought, be helpful in international negotiations. The Minister mentioned four other countries that have sanctioned the two Ministers today. Is he anticipating that further countries will follow suit, and what negotiations are taking place to achieve that goal?

[Mr Falconer]

We have had discussions with other countries, but I would not wish at the Dispatch Box to speculate on what steps they may take following this.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Let me be crystal clear: this Government oppose Israel’s model for aid, which does not respect humanitarian principles and cannot deliver aid effectively at speed or at the scale required. It is wrong and it is dangerous for the humanitarian system.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Earlier, the Foreign Secretary used the phrase “morally wrong”. I entirely agree with that, and I am sure we can all agree that the original Hamas massacre is equally morally unacceptable. May I take him back to the issue of recognition? I am one of the Members who has previously supported the recognition of the state of Palestine. If there were a free vote in the House, I think there would be overwhelming support for that, which would give the Government moral authority to take even more robust further action, so may I suggest that they take that course of action?

[Mr Lammy]

UK bilateral recognition is the single most important action that the United Kingdom can take with regard to Palestinian statehood, which is why it is important for us to get the timing right and to work with partners as we consider the issues very closely. I have talked about the international conference in June on the implementation of the two-state solution, which we will of course be attending; we are talking with our partners about it and they will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Gaza: UK Assessment

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I have outlined some of the action, but I reassure my hon. Friend that we are not waiting for legal determinations, not least because the ICJ has issued provisional measures, and because it is the policy of this Government that we are acting now to try to improve the lot of Palestinians.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

One thing we can all agree on is that we want to see the safe release of the hostages. It is evident that military action, in and of itself, was never going to achieve that. With that in mind, do the Government support or condemn Israel for the most recent escalation of military action? If they are not prepared to condemn it at this stage, how many more innocent deaths must there be before they do?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the hostages. Some of the released hostages have made this argument with the greatest force, and they are important words. Let me say concretely and clearly that the British Government oppose the return to war in Gaza by the Israeli Government; we oppose the most recent escalation.